Laughing at suffering

[Encephalon]

[effilang]

That is just horrible.

 

No respect for the animal at all.

[C T]

Do not be dismayed, my friends...

 

That great fish, though suffering great physical distress, is actually a Boddhisattva Mahasattva,

transformed into a fish, to show us the futility of ignorance, and to plant the seeds of Compassion

in our mindstreams. Thus are we blessed, thru opening our eyes to the wisdom of Dharma.

 

These poor folks giggling and laughing here are in a daze of delusion, unable to free themselves

from the jaws of stupidity and heartlessness due to confusion. Please remember them in your prayers,

that they too, will someday be touched by Avalokiteshvara, and become Boddhisattvas themselves,

with the instant and choiceless capacity to sacrifice themselves for others, without resistance

nor hesitation, just like this 'fish' here.

 

Om Namo Amitabha. Om Mani Peme Hung.

 

Peace be in your hearts, and in the hearts of those you cherish.

Edited November 18, 2009 by CowTao

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Don't need to put that image in my consciousness, thanks...

[Marblehead]

I apologize but after reading the responses I decided to not look at the link.

 

Yes, I know, we should be aware of our surroundings so that we can be properly conditioned to respond to it in the most effieient way possible.

 

The cruel dualities of humanity is oftentimes distressing but it is a reality none-the-less.

 

I have seen my share of the inhumanities of the human animal to know what it can do. Like Songs said, I don't need more negative images in my conscious mind.

 

But regardless of my feelings, I thank Blasto for bringing reality to the fore. If we do not observe and try to understand we are ignoring a part of reality and we will never make an attempt to make the world a more peaceful place.

 

Peace & Love!

[Gerard]

Who asked in another thread about the meaning of suffering?

[C T]

Please understand what 'transcending' normal, habitual responses are. This image is a perfect opportunity

to realize that the ultimate nature of Reality do not contain good or bad, ugly or beautiful, cruel or kind. All

is contained within this Reality, empty of conceptual duality. When one rises, the other rises, and when one subsides,

so does the other. Shunya.

 

 

If you view this clip with eyes enlightened, you will not see ugliness and cruelty. You will not see its opposite

either, but you will see how conditions arise and give rise to other conditions, and likewise, how they cease

in a similar way.

 

By ignoring the undesirable, it does not enhance what is desirable. It is by embracing how things are, that

the Mind settles.

[rex]

Absolutely horrifying and yet another image to add to the storehouse of images that spur practice.

Edited November 18, 2009 by rex

[Marblehead]

By ignoring the undesirable, it does not enhance what is desirable. It is by embracing how things are, that

the Mind settles.

 

Hi CowTao,

 

I agree with your first sentence (with limitations).

 

The second, while not being incorrect, I believe that we do not need to embrace how things (the negatives) are because we have the free will to change those things (within limits) that are not acceptable in our life.

 

Again, I have not viewed the link. But I am sure that if there were something cruel happening and I had the ability to stop it I surely would. I do not have to accept ugliness into my life. It does not need to be a part of what I am. I prefer to accept what is beautiful into my world and leave the ugliness at the sidewalk.

 

If I can make a change, I will. If I can do nothing about it I will either remove it from my life or remove myself from the environment.

 

And I assure you, my life is very peaceful while I am in my world holding to the delusion that there is no cruelity and ugliness.

 

Peace & Love!

[Moonbar]

Terrible, Yes they are stupid & deluded people.

 

This video & the even worse chinese fur trade video make me sick & furious.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

I once watched one of the beheading videos on the internet a few years ago, and I fully realize how sick, cruel and nightmarish the world can be. I do not need to keep revisiting that same reality, lest despair at the inhumanity of our condition overwhelm the positive things I wish to have and accomplish in my life be blotted out by these images that seep into my conscious and unconscious reality.

 

Sure, it can be spiritual practice to witness this, but it is easy to get too much of it very very quickly, and once implanted, these images are difficult if not impossible to avoid affecting my reality. Again, I don't need that stuff in my consciousness. One can make it a spiritual practice, but then one must move on. The greater risk for most people is that there is a prurient fascination, like watching the aftermath of a horrible car wreck, rather than true equanimity. I agree with Marblehead.

Edited November 18, 2009 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Zenshiite]

I find things like this usually don't give me any great insight, it only enrages me and makes me want to do great harm to the perpetrators of such cruelty. I've often pondered equally cruel means of disposing of animal abusers. I saw enough fur trade and factory farm and slaughterhouse videos when I was 19 and first getting into veganism and animal rights/liberation.

 

It's one thing to respond to injustice and cruelty and be motivated to alleviate the suffering, it's another entirely for me to respond to it with the desire to inflict suffering upon the perpetrators. Sadly, that's my current state of response to such situations. Video and picture in particular.

[Marblehead]

 

It's one thing to respond to injustice and cruelty and be motivated to alleviate the suffering, it's another entirely for me to respond to it with the desire to inflict suffering upon the perpetrators. Sadly, that's my current state of response to such situations. Video and picture in particular.

 

I agree. When we see the cruelties of humans and we start to think that we should do to them what they are doing we become no better than they are. Sad that life works that way but it truely does. The concept of revenge.

 

Peace & Love!

Edited November 18, 2009 by Marblehead

[Inedible]

CowTao - the "near enemy" of equanimity is absence of caring. The "distant enemy" of each of the Immeasurables is its opposite, and it is easy to recognize the "distant enemy" when you are cultivating the Immeasurables, but the "near enemy" is a fault which resembles the state you are actually working to cultivate.

[C T]

CowTao - the "near enemy" of equanimity is absence of caring. The "distant enemy" of each of the Immeasurables is its opposite, and it is easy to recognize the "distant enemy" when you are cultivating the Immeasurables, but the "near enemy" is a fault which resembles the state you are actually working to cultivate.

This sounds very deep and profound, and beyond me, I am afraid. If you could perhaps expand this in a manner that you think a simple-minded person like me could understand, i would be very grateful. I seem to have read your comment as an allusion that i am cultivating 'absence of caring' -- is that what you are saying? I am very open to criticisms, and believe that misunderstandings ought to be addressed, so please just say what is on your mind, and if it makes sense, and can help me to understand you better, that would be a great way to clear up any potential misguided notions i may have from reading this comment of yours. Furthermore, if you can point out my faults based on the comments i have made in this thread, it would certainly help me to re-evaluate my understanding of the Dharma, and i would be most thankful.

[rex]

This sounds very deep and profound, and beyond me ...

Saying that everything is empty and ultimate reality is beyond good and evil runs the risk of trivializing the very real suffering experienced in the relative. There's a saying that goes something along the lines of 'while sentient beings suffer from the sickness of suffering, bodhisattvas willingly suffer from the sickness of compassion'.

[C T]

Hi CowTao,

 

I agree with your first sentence (with limitations).

 

The second, while not being incorrect, I believe that we do not need to embrace how things (the negatives) are because we have the free will to change those things (within limits) that are not acceptable in our life.

 

Again, I have not viewed the link. But I am sure that if there were something cruel happening and I had the ability to stop it I surely would. I do not have to accept ugliness into my life. It does not need to be a part of what I am. I prefer to accept what is beautiful into my world and leave the ugliness at the sidewalk.

 

If I can make a change, I will. If I can do nothing about it I will either remove it from my life or remove myself from the environment.

 

And I assure you, my life is very peaceful while I am in my world holding to the delusion that there is no cruelity and ugliness.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Hey MH,

 

Thanks for responding.. very kind of you to, as per your usual diplomatic,well-mannered way. You are a gentleman indeed! Very rare these days i must add.

 

The Real, the absolute nature of Reality, is nothing more than One single flow of opposites, which appear to be dual when observed subjectively, but if one were to remove the observer, there is but one flow, and not two, as many mistakenly see. Just like the Yin and Yang, its the two in the one, and within the one, there's two!

 

Problems arise when this singular wholeness is rejected as a manifestation of Reality. lt will then appear as though there are cruel deeds and kind deeds, (as if these are two separate, conflicting realities), but if this same wholeness is embraced fully, then one will see that what we deem as just and moral deeds, are but a reflection of that which we deem as deeds that are immoral and unjust. So are we to live in denial of one, to push aside and to suppress the darker aspect, and just keep sight of the other brighter aspect? To put this another way, are we merely fooling ourselves that by just negating the dark we will live in the bright, or perhaps just focussing on the bright will make the dark less dark? My understanding of the Taoist philosophy tells me this is a misconception, but i stand to be corrected, of course.

 

I think this misperception is the major contributory factor of man's constant need to always 'do' something to improve himself, to make himself 'brighter' and 'righter', in order to wash away the darker aspects of his personality(micro) and in humanity (macro), hence the impotence of man to face up to and accept the darker aspect can be well understood from this perspective. It would be hard for man to resolve his conflicts if he is not able to come to terms with this, and in order to do so effectively, one has not only to welcome the 'friends' of one's personality, but also the 'demons' that reside in one's psyche. As we are well aware, these 'demons' do exist in each of us, and the best way to pacify them, i think, is to befriend them, and welcome them, no matter how ugly and hideous they may seem, because only then can a permanent and lasting change be negotiated. By so doing, we also go a long way to understand and quell our phobias, chronic fears, and hidden anxieties.

 

Now, if we do not acknowledge these hidden aspects of our psychological make-up, will it make them dissappear? I am no psychologist, but I doubt it somehow. When we refuse to respect and recognize that they are also a part of us, what happens is they will simply lie dormant somewhere deep in the psyche, just waiting to rear their heads when conditions are right for them to do so. I am sure we all know that suppression of any emotion can be very unhealthy, and if dammed up long enough, will certainly find ways and means to express themselves, and the longer we refuse to acknowledge them, the greater will be the force when they eventually surface. Hence we read comments here that contains words like "angry", "sickened", "revenge", "despair", "inhumane" etc. etc. So where did these words come up from? If not for this video, some of us do not even know that these so-called negative 'words' exist in our vocabulary, since we are so Taoist or so Buddhist, so good and moral and what have you. Isnt this a form of delusion, of self-denial?

 

For one who has the Eyes of Buddha, who can see and understand the Whole of man's actions, these negative words, and the emotional dramas associated with them, will no longer hold any meaning, because they are seen as mere reflections of what we perceive to be their opposites, and ultimately, they both arise together, and subside together. To me, this is transcendence, the ability to reunite the opposites, and overcome the illusion of light and dark. It is a total reconciliation of conflict. It is freedom.

 

Feel free to comment.

 

Be good!

Edited November 18, 2009 by CowTao

[Inedible]

I'd like to add that if you have to resort to false modesty and sarcasm you aren't really qualified to say that a fish is actually a Bodhisattva Mahasattva.

 

(How can you know about Sunyata and Bodhisattvas and not know the core ideas of Buddhism? The Four Immeasurables are called Immeasurable because they are felt equally for friends, enemies, self, and those sentient beings who are neutral and not in any of the other categories. They are Immeasurable Loving-Kindness, Immeasurable Symapthetic Joy [happiness for the happiness of other sentient beings, whether temporary or permanent happiness], Immeasurable Compassion, and Immeasurable Equanimity. Each has a "near enemy". With Loving-Kindness, the "near enemy" is attachment and the "distant enemy" is anger. When you cultivate Loving-Kindness and find yourself reacting in anger to sentient beings, it is clear that this is not Loving-Kindness and that is a clear warning sign. Attachment can be mistaken for correct Loving-Kindness, and so it is a more serious problem. The Four Immeasurables are the basis for cultivating Bodhichitta, the motivation which makes one a Bodhisattva. Bodhichitta has several levels ranging from the Aspiring Bodhichitta of ordinary sentient beings to the Relative Bodhichitta of a Bodhisattva who has developed the first jhana and entered the first Bhumi, and finally to the Absolute Bodhichitta of a Bodhisattva who has directly perceived Emptiness of Inherent Existence in meditation. Only a Buddha can directly perceive Emptiness of Inherent Existence outside of meditation, while also experiencing Relative Truth. For the rest of us, including many Bodhisattva Mahasattvas, it still really hurts to be dipped in hot oil and thrown on a plate.)

[C T]

I'd like to add that if you have to resort to false modesty and sarcasm you aren't really qualified to say that a fish is actually a Bodhisattva Mahasattva.

 

(How can you know about Sunyata and Bodhisattvas and not know the core ideas of Buddhism? The Four Immeasurables are called Immeasurable because they are felt equally for friends, enemies, self, and those sentient beings who are neutral and not in any of the other categories. They are Immeasurable Loving-Kindness, Immeasurable Symapthetic Joy [happiness for the happiness of other sentient beings, whether temporary or permanent happiness], Immeasurable Compassion, and Immeasurable Equanimity. Each has a "near enemy". With Loving-Kindness, the "near enemy" is attachment and the "distant enemy" is anger. When you cultivate Loving-Kindness and find yourself reacting in anger to sentient beings, it is clear that this is not Loving-Kindness and that is a clear warning sign. Attachment can be mistaken for correct Loving-Kindness, and so it is a more serious problem. The Four Immeasurables are the basis for cultivating Bodhichitta, the motivation which makes one a Bodhisattva. Bodhichitta has several levels ranging from the Aspiring Bodhichitta of ordinary sentient beings to the Relative Bodhichitta of a Bodhisattva who has developed the first jhana and entered the first Bhumi, and finally to the Absolute Bodhichitta of a Bodhisattva who has directly perceived Emptiness of Inherent Existence in meditation. Only a Buddha can directly perceive Emptiness of Inherent Existence outside of meditation, while also experiencing Relative Truth. For the rest of us, including many Bodhisattva Mahasattvas, it still really hurts to be dipped in hot oil and thrown on a plate.)

 

Sir,

 

Well spoken.. truly words of one who has studied the Buddhist scriptures in detail. I too, used to pay alot of attention to the teachings at one time, but gave it up because of my simple-minded nature. Nowadays, i just say what i think, to my own understanding, is right.

 

If i have offended your self-righteous views in the process of expressing what you deem as my twisted understanding of what i thought Buddha taught (me), i apologize unreservedly, without sarcasm and false-modesty.

 

The only question i am asking myself here, after reading your comment, is what is it that is stopping me from directly perceiving into the Emptiness of Inherent Existence outside of meditation? Is it the refusal to accept that it is simply as simple as what it says one ought to do, and just do that, or a refusal to believe that all buddhist teachers can be wrong when they all preach that it takes years and years of hardcore devotion and study before one can attain insight into the true nature of things? Or is it because the Books say that we are mere helpless souls lost in samsara, and hence are far from ready for arhatship and all the super perks an arhat enjoy? So am i to buy into this line of authoritative command mumbo-jumbo? Or do i simply allow myself to see clearly the Reality of the illusion of opposites? Or Maybe i am just trapped in deep delusion.

 

BTW, how do you know that the thoughts that arise in 'my' mind are not spontaneously liberated upon their arising? It sounds like i do not conform to your idea of what a truly liberated Buddhist is, so in your eyes, that makes me some kind of a rogue then, doesn't it? Sounds exciting!

Edited November 18, 2009 by CowTao

[Encephalon]

I find things like this usually don't give me any great insight, it only enrages me and makes me want to do great harm to the perpetrators of such cruelty. I've often pondered equally cruel means of disposing of animal abusers. I saw enough fur trade and factory farm and slaughterhouse videos when I was 19 and first getting into veganism and animal rights/liberation.

 

It's one thing to respond to injustice and cruelty and be motivated to alleviate the suffering, it's another entirely for me to respond to it with the desire to inflict suffering upon the perpetrators. Sadly, that's my current state of response to such situations. Video and picture in particular.

 

I am right there with you, Zen. I would admonish all of us who feel so moved that we are not morally responsible for our feelings, only our actions. Some philosophers have argued that we are also morally responsible for our ideas, and the information we gather to construct our ideas, which is a different subject altogether, but I've spend hours devising punishments for animal abusers. It just shows us the depths of our feeling.

 

May your journey be a gentle one.

[Inedible]

Nowadays, i just say what i think, to my own understanding, is right.

 

Fine. Cut the carp and just say what's on your mind without mis-using words from established traditions.

 

As for this ...

 

BTW, how do you know that the thoughts that arise in 'my' mind are not spontaneously liberated upon their arising? It sounds like i do not conform to your idea of what a truly liberated Buddhist is, so in your eyes, that makes me some kind of a rogue then, doesn't it? Sounds exciting!

 

I can't decide if you sound more like Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin.

 

http://www.glennbeck.com/

 

http://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin

[C T]

Fine. Cut the carp and just say what's on your mind without mis-using words from established traditions.

 

As for this ...

I can't decide if you sound more like Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin.

 

http://www.glennbeck.com/

 

http://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin

Very buddhist indeed! A religious one at that..

[Smile]

CowTao, I'm puzzled by your comments. Would you tell me what you would do if you observed the incident in real life?

 

I know what I would do. For me, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing...

[NeiChuan]

Please understand what 'transcending' normal, habitual responses are. This image is a perfect opportunity

to realize that the ultimate nature of Reality do not contain good or bad, ugly or beautiful, cruel or kind. All

is contained within this Reality, empty of conceptual duality. When one rises, the other rises, and when one subsides,

so does the other. Shunya.

 

 

I agree completely.

[C T]

CowTao, I'm puzzled by your comments. Would you tell me what you would do if you observed the incident in real life?

 

I know what I would do. For me, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing...

One who sees clearly, does nothing. Doing nothing, everything is done. The Mind no longer wants to escape from, or run to, unpleasantness or pleasantness. Everything arise with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we create the world, the Buddha says. Is the butterfly cruel by insisting on the death of the caterpillar in order that it may come to life? Are they two separate entities? Or are they one? Seeing this clearly, the mind resides nowhere. What is there to do, but smile?

 

I agree completely.

A wise man indeed..